AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (11) TMI 1381
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for respondent No.3 (ASG). 3. The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint of respondent No.3, the Deputy Director of Income Tax Investigation, Foreign Assets, Investigation Unit, Bengaluru filed first information to the Kadugodi Police on 12.07.2022 alleging that on 30.06.2022 the investigation team carried out a search and seizure action under Section 132 of Income Tax Act, at Raipur as well as at Sheraton Hotel Grand in room No.664, Bengaluru. The room was occupied by the accused Suryakanth Tiwari and while the team was trying to apprehend him, he had destroyed the mobile phone in the bathroom and also tried to flush out the same in the commode and tried to swallow the important documentary evidence. While apprehending him he is said to have used criminal force on the public authorities and prevented them from discharging their official duty. After registering the case, during the investigation, the police said to have obtained permission from the ACJM for investigating for the offences punishable under Section 384 of IPC also. Later the IT officer said to have written a letter to the Enforcement Department and thereafter the ED registered a case in ECIR-RPZO- 09/22 and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s liable to be quashed. 5. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner further contended, if at all any complaint lodged in respect of the offence under section 384 of IPC, the police can register zero FIR and they can transfer the same to the jurisdictional police, but they are having no jurisdiction to investigate the matter for the offence under Section 384 of IPC and further contended, for the purpose of registering the case by ED, the offence under Sections 186, 204, and 353 of IPC were not scheduled offences. Therefore, in order to bring them in a schedule offences under Section 384 of IPC has been falsely invoked at Bengaluru as a predicate offence which is not permissible. Also, further contended that even if it assumed that the offence committed under section 384 of IPC as a gospel truth, but Karnataka police cannot investigate the matter as the said offence is committed at Chhattisgarh. He further contended that while registering the case by ED they have mentioned the case registered at Bengaluru, as a base or a predicate offence for the offence punishable under Sections 384 and 386 of IPC which were not the part of the FIR at Bengaluru and they have also added 120B of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ykanth Tiwari and this petitioner is the uncle of Surykanth Tiwari. The amount collected by the Surykanth Tiwari has been handed over to this petitioner and hard cash has been seized by the ED officials from the possession of this petitioner. Both this petitioner and Surykanth Tiwari have all admitted in the enquiry made by the Income tax officials as well as the ED officials. Therefore, there is strong evidence against him, for conducting investigation against him and it cannot be said that the role of this petitioner is not there in the evidence. If at all this petitioner is aggrieved by the investigation of the ED, he has to urge the said ground before the Special Court at Chhattisgarh and he has no locus standi to question the FIR and the investigation by the Karnataka police as against Surykanth Tiwari. Hence prayed for dismissing the petition. 9. The learned Additional Solicitor General, also objected the petition and supported the arguments of the SPP II and further he would contend that the petitioner is involved in extortion case along with the main accused Suryakanth Tiwari at Chhattisgarh. The Income tax authority raided the hotel room of Suryakanth Tiwari, at that time....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was laid down 7 principles, while considering the quashing the criminal proceedings as held under: "(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the High Court. In Crl.A. 330/2021 relied by the ASG, the case of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt., Ltd. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors has held that the Court cannot grant an interim stay of investigation or coercive system should be adopted during the pendency of quashing the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., and/or Article 226 of Constitution of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has issued some guidelines while dealing with the matter for quashing the FIR and observed, the FIR should be quashed only in the rarest of rare case and Court thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences. Further held, quashing of FIR should be an exception rather than the ordinary role. In another judgment relied by ASG, in Crl.A.No. 1044/2022 Siddharth Mukesh Bhandari Vs The State of Gujarat and Anr., case the Hon'ble Supreme Court also taken similar view. 13. Having heard the arguments of both parties, I have perused the judgments relied by the respective counsel for the parties and by keeping the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above said cases in mind and perused the records. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant, the Income Tax....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ermission from the ACJM on 03.09.2022 for adding section 384 of IPC. That apart, even merely the offence is committed at Chhattisgarh, it cannot be said that the police cannot register FIR at Bengaluru, but they are very much having authority to register FIR or zero FIR but only after definite enquiry, then they shall forward or transfer investigation to the police who are having jurisdiction to investigate the matter and the Court having jurisdiction to try the offence. 14. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has contended that as per Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. the police are having power to investigate the matter in cognizable cases, which the court is having jurisdiction in local area within the limits of such Station and as per Section 181 (3) of Cr.P.C., the offence of extortion may be enquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed, therefore the Karnataka Police have no jurisdiction to register the offence under Section 384 of IPC. On the other hand, the SPP II as well as Additional Solicitor General has contended that this accused Suryakanth Tiwari though the offence of extortion was committed at Chhattisgarh, however s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bery may be inquired into or tied by a court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or the stolen property which is the subject of the offence was possessed by any person committing it or by any person who received or retained such property knowing or having reason to believe it to be stolen property." 18. On the bare reading of the provisions of Section 181 (3) of Cr.P.C which empowers the Court having jurisdiction of four places i.e., (1) The Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed, Or (2) the stolen property which is the subject matter of offence was possessed by any person committing it, Or (3) By any person who received, Or (4) retain such property, knowing or having reason to believe it to be stolen property. Therefore, it cannot be said the Court having jurisdiction to try to the offence only if the offence is committed within the local jurisdiction, but also the other three places of Courts can try the offence as per Section 181 (3) of Cr.P.C. On that background, if the accused Suryakanth Tiwari is alleged to have been involved in the commission of extortion at Chhattisgarh State and if he has carried any crime proceeds and he was....